2016 AGM and Digital Forum

[tigerfan1961]

You are missing the point made by one of the directors at the AGM.
Whilst we do get a lot of exposure for train travelers and cars driving by, we don't play games there like they do at Geelong and all the interstaters. That's what makes it harder to sell. They said the ME Bank deal was very good and I agree.
Pies do well for their training base but their exposure as a brand sadly is higher than ours. We will get a sponsor, we just won't give it away for unders

 

[TigerImposter]

Gale still in denial and missing the point of the board being accountable . He stated
"Members wanting to preserve their rights ".
FFS Gale of course as you blokes were trying to take them away.
Who would trust these con artists now? It was the last chance members had a choice and have a say insomething and they got their arses kicked .
Well done to the two members who held them accountable on the night( Peter Casey I believe was one) and to all the members who applauded them for it. Classy stuff guys.

Hale Benny Fale

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...d/news-story/a1000ef05e9383bd68ea1880b8074a3b

 

[_RT_]

Gale still in denial and missing the point of the board being accountable . He stated
"Members wanting to preserve their rights ".
FFS Gale of course as you blokes were trying to take them away.
Who would trust these con artists now? It was the last chance members had a choice and have a say insomething and they got their arses kicked .
Well done to the two members who held them accountable on the night( Peter Casey I believe was one) and to all the members who applauded them for it. Classy stuff guys.

Hale Benny Fale

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...d/news-story/a1000ef05e9383bd68ea1880b8074a3b

Did you vote in the board elections? Did you vote for/against any of the proposed changes floated?

If you read this board there plenty of unhappy supporters around but barely 7% of eligible members bothered to vote. Maybe Peggy was right when she said it was a vocal minority making all the noise.

Those same people would be the first to jump up and down if the club sold sponsorship of PRO for unders. It just seems that the club can't win no matter what it does with regards that situation. Hold out for thr best deal get hammered, sign a lesser deal get hammered.

 

[wegetpumped]

Did you vote in the board elections? Did you vote for/against any of the proposed changes floated?

If you read this board there plenty of unhappy supporters around but barely 7% of eligible members bothered to vote. Maybe Peggy was right when she said it was a vocal minority making all the noise.

Those same people would be the first to jump up and down if the club sold sponsorship of PRO for unders. It just seems that the club can't win no matter what it does with regards that situation. Hold out for thr best deal get hammered, sign a lesser deal get hammered.

To be fair all they have done is run the on field stuff like the NBN They have lied as much as any good politician. They have left members so low in morale they couldn't even bother voting. We have a president that welcomes fights only wants to change the way they can be started.
I mean seriously this morons cant do anything right so your remark on that is so way off line dude.
BTW vocal minoritys are people that only have the

to stand up the rest are just

.

 

[TigerImposter]

Did you vote in the board elections? Did you vote for/against any of the proposed changes floated?

If you read this board there plenty of unhappy supporters around but barely 7% of eligible members bothered to vote. Maybe Peggy was right when she said it was a vocal minority making all the noise.

Those same people would be the first to jump up and down if the club sold sponsorship of PRO for unders. It just seems that the club can't win no matter what it does with regards that situation. Hold out for thr best deal get hammered, sign a lesser deal get hammered.

You missed the point as I was referring to the AGM changes in the constitution that they were after.it appears you didn't read the comments made by Gale in the link ?
Also if you had been reading in previous threads you would have the answer to your questions.

 

[Goldust]

Are you referring to the end of 2015?
Dimma was re-signed at the start of 2016, so they would be referring to players resigning quickly prior to that, ie during the 2015 season.

By the way, not trying to defend the decision to extend Dimmas, just clarifying the comment.

I understand that, but players did not re-sign quickly.
If 22 players were left unsigned near the end of 2016, it automatically follows that we weren't busting a gut to re-sign guys at the end of 2015.

 

[tigerfan1961]

Did you vote in the board elections? Did you vote for/against any of the proposed changes floated?

If you read this board there plenty of unhappy supporters around but barely 7% of eligible members bothered to vote. Maybe Peggy was right when she said it was a vocal minority making all the noise.

Those same people would be the first to jump up and down if the club sold sponsorship of PRO for unders. It just seems that the club can't win no matter what it does with regards that situation. Hold out for thr best deal get hammered, sign a lesser deal get hammered.

You are replying to a post from one of the ignored posters I have. By the tone of what you say, I assumed it was the imposter and I was right.
Tipping he didn't vote nor go to the meeting. Noticed he put Casey up on a pedestal, I was there and he was just there to be disruptive, as was a guy who held a lot of proxies. Both were just arguing points to be "anti Board" in my opinion and Casey was taken to task by Jack Riewoldt after the meeting finished, and towards the end by another member, everyone near me was sick of him and his petty & somewhat pedantic questions by the end.
Only motion they defeated(only just) was the 100 votes for an EGM. To be able to call an EGM on .13% of the current membership base is a total joke, as the cost cannot possibly justify the actions of that small sample of members. If they didn't want the 5% corporations law stipulation, maybe they should have suggested maybe a lesser figure but 100, what a joke.
That meeting should have wound up a lot earlier but the actions of two disruptive members just added so much unnecessary discussions to an otherwise well run meeting.
And before you reply TI and say it's their right, and yes it is, perhaps keeping the questions to important and concise aspects of the changes, rather than pathetic attempts to attack on weak pedantic matters & attack a Board that's done a reasonably good job to date.
Everyone makes mistakes in life, even board members collectively. Only major thing I've not agreed with was extending the coachs contract but after listening to their reasoning behind why they did, I can accept it. I'm certain they'll act quickly if it becomes clear next season that Dimma is not the man, but I'm not writing him off just yet.
Sorry for the long rant but just sick of those bagging the Board. Get on field right and they'll be patting them on the back.

 

[_RT_]

You missed the point as I was referring to the AGM changes in the constitution that they were after.it appears you didn't read the comments made by Gale in the link ?
Also if you had been reading in previous threads you would have the answer to your questions.

No I got the point of your post and I have read Gales quotes and the club is within its rights to seek to have more than 100 signatures required to force an egm given we have around 30k members that are eligible to vote in board elections. Unless of course you're happy to see the club spend $100k on the whim of 100 disgruntled members.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

No I got the point of your post and I have read Gales quotes and the club is within its rights to seek to have more than 100 signatures required to force an egm given we have around 30k members that are eligible to vote in board elections. Unless of course you're happy to see the club spend $100k on the whim of 100 disgruntled members.

its actually just under 50k who can vote

 

[TigerImposter]

No I got the point of your post and I have read Gales quotes and the club is within its rights to seek to have more than 100 signatures required to force an egm given we have around 30k members that are eligible to vote in board elections. Unless of course you're happy to see the club spend $100k on the whim of 100 disgruntled members.

Since when has the club spent $100k on an EGM?
I call bull shit as Around 20 years ago was the last time they had one. In the end the point I made was they lost it and Benny missed the point and it had nothing to do with whether I approved it as this was you jumping at shadows. In actual fact I believe 500 is a good figure. Try again .

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Since when has the club spent $100k on an EGM?
I call bull shit as Around 20 years ago was the last time they had one. In the end the point I made was they lost it and Benny missed the point and it had nothing to do with whether I approved it as this was you jumping at shadows. In actual fact I believe 500 is a good figure. Try again .

the $100k was a media estimate

q was asked about cost at the AGM. Gale said "tens of thousands" after some discussion

I think Caro had an estimate of $50k

also we have never had an egm (in recent memory anyway). the board actually resigned on mass for the macek challenge, so the egm trigger was never used.

my issue with the 100 is its too low for idiots. we have had a few on the forums who have tried to get petitions up for an egm so they can spill the board to get rid of the coach etc, but they have no proposed replacement board. I'd like at least 1000 because its easy enough to get it thanks to social media and pre game work, but its too high for a bunch of nuffs and their mates to force an unwanted egm

 

[shaky]

I understand that, but players did not re-sign quickly.
If 22 players were left unsigned near the end of 2016, it automatically follows that we weren't busting a gut to re-sign guys at the end of 2015.

I think it was a bit of a warm and fluffy statement.
You would hope that sort of thing has very little to do with why you sign a coach.
Yes you want the players to want to play for him and also you don't want mass numbers of players wanting out due to the coach.

You're right, I think by the end of this year we were heading the other way, Lids, Ty, Conca, Lennon the main ones.

I think Dimma does have his favorites and most of the above players probably felt like they weren't getting a fair opportunity.
It will be interesting if we only have an average year with Dusty the big one out of contract. By all indications he has a good relationship with Dimma, would hate to lose Dusty because we give Dimma the arse halfway through the year.

 

[TigerImposter]

You are replying to a post from one of the ignored posters I have. By the tone of what you say, I assumed it was the imposter and I was right.
Tipping he didn't vote nor go to the meeting. Noticed he put Casey up on a pedestal, I was there and he was just there to be disruptive, as was a guy who held a lot of proxies. Both were just arguing points to be "anti Board" in my opinion and Casey was taken to task by Jack Riewoldt after the meeting finished, and towards the end by another member, everyone near me was sick of him and his petty & somewhat pedantic questions by the end.
Only motion they defeated(only just) was the 100 votes for an EGM. To be able to call an EGM on .13% of the current membership base is a total joke, as the cost cannot possibly justify the actions of that small sample of members. If they didn't want the 5% corporations law stipulation, maybe they should have suggested maybe a lesser figure but 100, what a joke.
That meeting should have wound up a lot earlier but the actions of two disruptive members just added so much unnecessary discussions to an otherwise well run meeting.
And before you reply TI and say it's their right, and yes it is, perhaps keeping the questions to important and concise aspects of the changes, rather than pathetic attempts to attack on weak pedantic matters & attack a Board that's done a reasonably good job to date.
Everyone makes mistakes in life, even board members collectively. Only major thing I've not agreed with was extending the coachs contract but after listening to their reasoning behind why they did, I can accept it. I'm certain they'll act quickly if it becomes clear next season that Dimma is not the man, but I'm not writing him off just yet.
Sorry for the long rant but just sick of those bagging the Board. Get on field right and they'll be patting them on the back.

Another bloke who puts words into posters mouths. I quoted that they got their wanted amendments knocked on the head and now I'm accused for the RFC I competencies and atrocities of the last three decades. Have a sucking read cobber as I did not agree with the number of 100. I basically said the members have lost trust on them. As far as Casey and the other dude went , well they walked out getting what they wanted.

http://oneeyed-richmond.com/forum/index.php?topic=25512.30

 

[TigerImposter]

the $100k was a media estimate

q was asked about cost at the AGM. Gale said "tens of thousands" after some discussion

I think Caro had an estimate of $50k

also we have never had an egm (in recent memory anyway). the board actually resigned on mass for the macek challenge, so the egm trigger was never used.

my issue with the 100 is its too low for idiots. we have had a few on the forums who have tried to get petitions up for an egm so they can spill the board to get rid of the coach etc, but they have no proposed replacement board. I'd like at least 1000 because its easy enough to get it thanks to social media and pre game work, but its too high for a bunch of nuffs and their mates to force an unwanted egm

I was answering to a poster on the 100k story as he raised it.
I reckon 500 is a start , but just MO. We haven't had an EGM in donkey years and this was them reacting with scare tactics over FoF . As we all saw they didn't get to the other end of the wicket and were run out.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Another bloke who puts words into posters mouths. I quoted that they got their wanted amendments knocked on the head and now I'm accused for the RFC I competencies and atrocities of the last three decades. Have a sucking read cobber as I did not agree with the number of 100. I basically said the members have lost trust on them. As far as Casey and the other dude went , well they walked out getting what they wanted.

http://oneeyed-richmond.com/forum/index.php?topic=25512.30

this is wrong mate

only one of the amendments was rejected.

I cant talk for casey, but the other guy voted against everything, so its wrong to say he got what he wanted

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I was answering to a poster on the 100k story as he raised it.
I reckon 500 is a start , but just MO. We haven't had an EGM in donkey years and this was them reacting with scare tactics over FoF . As we all saw they didn't get to the other end of the wicket and were run out.

that was only because commonsense prevailed. they had a trigger, but realized they were dead in the water

my concern is for the idiots who want to spill a board but have no alternative (ie that dickhead Pahoof)

 

[TigerImposter]

this is wrong mate

only one of the amendments was rejected.

I cant talk for casey, but the other guy voted against everything, so its wrong to say he got what he wanted

They voted in limted terms which was a win and also the rest were minor in comparison.

 

[TigerImposter]

that was only because commonsense prevailed. they had a trigger, but realized they were dead in the water

my concern is for the idiots who want to spill a board but have no alternative (ie that dickhead Pahoof)

It hasn't happened in two decades. Clutching at straws. Only reason there will be a spill if gross incompetence occurs as we had this year. Loss of and free sponsorship , failed footy dept and team etc etc .

 

[Ned_Flanders]

They voted in limted terms which was a win and also the rest were minor in comparison.

That guy voted against everything - inc the term limits

 

[TigerImposter]

That guy voted against everything - inc the term limits

I don't think Casey would have. That other guy was full of adrenalin and passion so he probably lost his way after a while.
Still they lost their main amendment and that was a kick in the guts IMO. I still think 500 would be reasonable.

 

[Achilles Heel]

The only reasons were are even having these discussions/arguments is because of the extension given to Hardwick and the season we have had, let's wrap it up and move on till the preseason

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I don't think Casey would have. That Ther guy was full of adrenalin and passion so he probably lost his way after a while.
Still they lost their main amendment and that was a kick in the guts IMO. I still think 500 would be reasonable.

I believe Casey voted for the term limits. the other guy was definitely fired up (people were groaning by the end every time he interjected)

*Casey was down to the right of me, so to see his vote I had to specifically look over. other dude was right behind me

I don't mind 500, but would prefer 1000. at least 500 makes it harder. we could get 100 for a spill tomorrow without much effort TBH

 

[TigerImposter]

I believe Casey voted for the term limits. the other guy was definitely fired up (people were groaning by the end every time he interjected)

*Casey was down to the right of me, so to see his vote I had to specifically look over. other dude was right behind me

I don't mind 500, but would prefer 1000. at least 500 makes it harder. we could get 100 for a spill tomorrow without much effort TBH

As proven its been a rare event for two decades and still unlikely to happen as the mob would need a strong presentation with valid reasons.

 

[parmy2balmey]

was the seashell collector at this meeting? did he show any?

 

[HumanMeatball]

Making more money than various other clubs. The highest of standards. Which is standard. Are you on the board?

Maybe we can win more games than various other clubs.

How this mob can't obtain a sponsor for the most of prime locations is a failure of the most highest standards.

As if there not trying dude, if companies don't want to sponsor they don't want to sponsor.